DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2025, 07/21/2025, 07/31/2025, 09/03/2025, 12/15/2025, 05/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the same group” in line 1 and “the same extended bus” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the examination on the merit, “the same group” will be considered as “the first group” and “the same extended bus” will be considered as “the bus”.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vernekar (US 2022/0309023 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vernekar teaches a system for communication in an extended multiplexed inter-integrated circuit bus configuration, the system comprising:
a. an inter-integrated circuit bus (Fig. 1, [0046] inter-integrated circuit (I2C) bus) including a plurality of wires (Fig. 1, [0043] 104, 106);
b. a plurality of target devices (Fig. 1, 112, 108, 110), each includes at least two ports of respective two types (Fig. 1, SCL, SDA); and
c. a controller device (Fig. 1, 102, [0041] I2C master device 102), communicatively connected to the plurality of target devices by an extended multiplexed configuration of the inter-integrated circuit bus (Fig. 1, 102 connecting 112, 108, 110 via 104/106), wherein a first group (Fig. 1, 107, [0043] the slave device arrangement 107) of at least two of the target devices (108, 110) are allocated to a first same target address ([0046] same address value for 108 and 110), wherein each of the target devices of the first group is connected to the bus by a different wire configuration of which wire is connected to which port type ([0044] a “cross connected” configuration).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Vernekar.
Vernekar further teaches the system, wherein the controller device is configured to:
a. initiate a start indication recognizable by a first target device of the first group, and unrecognizable by the other target devices of the first group, based on the wire configuration by which the first device is connected to the bus ([0055] detect the clock pin or the date pin is connected to the serial clock line 104; Figs. 3a, 3b, [0072] a conventional configuration; a cross connected configuration, [0073] a START condition); and
b. transmit a communication along with an indication of the first same target address of the first group (Fig. 1, Dev Add = X).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Vernekar.
Vernekar further teaches the system, wherein the target devices of the first group share the same target address and are assembled to the bus, with respective different wire configurations, in which a clock signal wire and a data signal wire are flipped in a first configuration with respect to a second configuration (Fig. 1, 108, 110).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Vernekar.
Vernekar further teaches the system, wherein the extended bus wires are each pulled-up by a pull-up resistor (Fig. 1, Rp, Rp).
Regarding claim 8, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 11 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vernekar (US 2022/0309023 A1) in view of Greenburg (US 2024/0373555 A1).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Vernekar.
Vernekar further teaches the system, wherein the target devices comprise sensors ([0046] sensors).
However, Vernekar does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the target devices are digital magnetometer sensors in an electromagnetic curve-tracked endoscope.
Greenburg teaches a system wherein a device comprises digital magnetometer sensors in an electromagnetic curve-tracked endoscope ([0059] an endoscope may comprise a plurality of digital magnetometer sensors, [0079] I2C communication, [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Vernekar to the teachings of Greenburg in order to overcome protocol level problems that may present in the slave devices connected to the I2C bus (Vernekar, [0002], [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vernekar (US 2022/0309023 A1) in view of Zou (CN 216719084 U).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Vernekar.
Vernekar further teaches the system, wherein the controller designates one wire as clock signal and the second as data signal, and communicates individually with each of a plurality of the target devices which are connected to the selected two wires (Fig. 1, SCL, SDA).
However, Vernekar does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the extended bus has at least three wires and wherein the controller select two of the three wires.
Zou teaches a system wherein a bus has at least three wires and wherein the controller select two of the three wires (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the multi-wire system of Zou to the teachings of Vernekar in order to expand I2C bus system without large system resource, low utilization and reduction of reliability (Zou, Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a system, wherein a second group of at least two of the target devices are allocated to a second same target address, wherein each of the target devices of the second group is connected to the bus by a different wire configuration of which wire is connected to which port type, wherein the controller device is configured to: a. initiate a start indication recognizable by a first target device of the first group and a first target device of the second group, and unrecognizable by the other target devices of the first and second groups, based on the wire configuration by which the first devices is connected to the bus; and b. transmit a communication along with an indication of the same target address of the first group, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 9 is objected to under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights